No abstract

IntroductionChronic diseases and multimorbidity are common and expected to rise over the coming years. The objective of this study is to examine the time trend in the prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity over the period 2001 till 2011 in the Netherlands, and the extent to which this can be ascribed to the aging of the population.MethodsMonitoring study, using two data sources: 1) medical records of patients listed in a nationally representative network of general practices over the period 2002–2011, and 2) national health interview surveys over the period 2001–2011. Regression models were used to study trends in the prevalence-rates over time, with and without standardization for age.ResultsAn increase from 34.9% to 41.8% (p<0.01) in the prevalence of chronic diseases was observed in the general practice registration over the period 2004–2011 and from 41.0% to 46.6% (p<0.01) based on self-reported diseases over the period 2001–2011. Multimorbidity increased from 12.7% to 16.2% (p<0.01) and from 14.3% to 17.5% (p<0.01), respectively. Aging of the population explained part of these trends: about one-fifth based on general practice data, and one-third for chronic diseases and half of the trend for multimorbidity based on health surveys.ConclusionsThe prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity increased over the period 2001–2011. Aging of the population only explained part of the increase, implying that other factors such as health care and society-related developments are responsible for a substantial part of this rise.

BackgroundStudies have demonstrated a higher risk of adverse outcomes among infants born or admitted during off-hours, as compared to office hours, leading to questions about quality of care provide during off-hours (weekend, evening or night). We aim to determine the relationship between off-hours delivery and adverse perinatal outcomes for subgroups of hospital births.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was based on data from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, a countrywide registry that covers 99% of all hospital births in the Netherlands. Data of 449,714 infants, born at 28 completed weeks or later, in the period 2003 through 2007 were used. Infants with a high a priori risk of morbidity or mortality were excluded. Outcome measures were intrapartum and early neonatal mortality, a low Apgar score (5 minute score of 0–6), and a composite adverse perinatal outcome measure (mortality, low Apgar score, severe birth trauma, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit).ResultsEvening and night-time deliveries that involved induction or augmentation of labour, or an emergency caesarean section, were associated with an increased risk of an adverse perinatal outcome when compared to similar daytime deliveries. Weekend deliveries were not associated with an increased risk when compared to weekday deliveries. It was estimated that each year, between 126 and 141 cases with an adverse perinatal outcomes could be attributed to this evening and night effect. Of these, 21 (15-16%) are intrapartum or early neonatal death. Among the 3100 infants in the study population who experience an adverse outcome each year, death accounted for only 5% (165) of these outcomes.ConclusionThis study shows that for infants whose mothers require obstetric interventions during labour and delivery, birth in the evening or at night, are at an increased risk of an adverse perinatal outcomes.

No abstract

Background: Information on the incidence and prevalence of diseases is a core indicator for public health. There are several ways to estimate morbidity in a population (e.g., surveys, healthcare registers). In this paper, we focus on one particular source: general practice based registers. Dutch general practice is a potentially valid source because nearly all noninstitutionalized inhabitants are registered with a general practitioner (GP), and the GP fulfils the role as ''gatekeeper''. However, there are some unexplained differences among morbidity estimations calculated from the data of various general practice registration networks (GPRNs). Objective: To describe and categorize factors that may explain the differences in morbidity rates from different GPRNs, and to provide an overview of these factors in Dutch GPRNs. Results: Four categories of factors are distinguished: ''healthcare system'', ''methodological characteristics'', ''general practitioner'', and ''patient''. The overview of 11 Dutch GPRNs reveals considerable differences in factors.Conclusion: Differences in morbidity estimation depend on factors in the four categories. Most attention is dedicated to the factors in the ''methodology characteristics'' category, mainly because these factors can be directly influenced by the GPRN.